nach oben

PharmacoEconomics

Erschienen in:

01.01.2014 | Original Research Article

The Value of a QALY: Individual Willingness to Pay for Health Gains Under Risk

verfasst von: Ana Bobinac, Job van Exel, Frans F. H. Rutten, Werner B. F. Brouwer

Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

There is an increased interest in the monetary value of a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Past studies commonly derived willingness to pay (WTP) for certain future QALY gains. However, obtaining valid WTP per QALY estimates proved to be difficult.

Objective

We conducted a contingent valuation study and estimated the individual WTP per QALY under risk. We demonstrate the impact of probability weighting on WTP per QALY estimates in the Netherlands.

Results

Our estimates of the value of a QALY are in the range of €80,000–110,000 when the weighting correction was applied, and €250,500 without correction. The validity of these estimates, applying probability weighting, appears to be good.

Conclusions

Given the reasonable support for their validity and practical meaningfulness, the estimates derived while correcting for probability weighting may provide valuable input for the debate on the consumption value of health. While decision makers should not apply these estimates without further consideration, since strictly individual valuations may not carry all relevant information and values for societal decision-making, the current estimates may provide a good and informed basis for further discussion and study of this important topic.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Gravelle H, Brouwer WBF, Niessen LW, Postma MJ, Rutten FFH. Discounting in economic evaluations: stepping forward towards optimal decision rules. Health Econ. 2007;16:307–17.PubMedCrossRef

Claxton K, Walker S, Palmer S, Sculpher M. Appropriate perspectives for health care decisions. Centre for Health Economics University of York. CHE Research Paper 54; 2010.

Bleichrodt H, Quiggin J. Life-cycle preferences over consumption and health: when is cost-effectiveness analysis equivalent to cost-benefit analysis? J Health Econ. 1999;18:681–708.PubMedCrossRef

Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY: theoretical and methodological issues. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:423–32.PubMedCrossRef

Pinto Prades JL, Loomes G, Brey R. Trying to estimate a monetary value for the QALY. J Health Econ. 2009;28:553–62.PubMedCrossRef

Gyrd-Hansen D, Kjær T. Disentangling WTP per QALY data: different analytical approaches different answers. Health Econ. 2012;21(3):222–37.PubMedCrossRef

Brouwer WBF, van Exel NJA, Baker R, Donaldson C. The new myth: the social value of the QALY. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:1–4.PubMedCrossRef

Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH, Brouwer WBF. Get more pay more? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation. J Health Econ. 2012;31:158–68.PubMedCrossRef

King JT Jr, Tsevat J, Lave JR, Roberts MS. Willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life year: implications for societal health care resource allocation. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25:667–77.CrossRef

10.

Gyrd-Hansen D. Willingness to pay for a QALY. Health Econ. 2003;12:1049–60.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH, Brouwer WBF. Willingness to pay for a QALY: the individual perspective. Value Health. 2010;13:1046–55.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Shiroiwa T, Sung Y, Fukuda T, et al. International survey on willingness-to-pay WTP for one additional QALY gained: what is the threshold of cost effectiveness. Health Econ. 2010;19:422–37.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Olsen JA, Donaldson C. Helicopters hearts and hips: using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1–12.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Donaldson C, Baker R, Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Lancsar E, Wildman J, Bateman I, Loomes G, Robinson A, Sugden R, Pinto Prades JL, Ryan M, Shackley P, Smith R. The social value of a QALY: raising the bar or barring the raise? BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

15.

Weinstein M. How much are Americans willing to pay for a quality-adjusted life year? Med Care. 2008;46:343–5.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Starmer C, Sugden R. Probability and juxtaposition effects: an experimental investigation of the common ratio effect. J Risk Uncertain. 1989;2:159–78.CrossRef

17.

Tversky AD, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 1992;1992(5):297–323.CrossRef

18.

Bleichrodt H, Eeckhoudt L. Willingness to pay for reductions in health risk when probabilities are distorted. Health Econ. 2006;15:211–4.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Corso P, Hammitt J, Graham J. Valuing mortality-risk reduction: using visual aids to improve the validity of contingent valuation. J Risk Uncertain. 2001;23:165–84.CrossRef

20.

Dubourg WR, Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G. Imprecise preferences and survey design in contingent valuation. Economica. 1997;64:681–702.CrossRef

21.

Donaldson C, Shackley P, Abdalla M, Miedzybrodzka Z. Willingness to pay for antenatal carrier screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Econ. 1995;4:439–52.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kind P, Dolan P, Gudex C, Williams A. Variations in population health status: results from a United Kingdom national questionnaire survey. BMJ. 1998;316:736–41.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lamers LM, McDonnell J, Stalmeier PF. The Dutch tariff: results and arguments for an effective design for national EQ-5D valuation studies. Health Econ. 2006;15:1121–32.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Craig BM, Busschbach JJ, Salomon JA. Modeling ranking, time trade-off, and visual analog scale values for EQ-5D health states: a review and comparison of methods. Med Care. 2009;47(6):634–41.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

25.

Krabbe PF, Tromp N, Ruers TJ, van Riel PL. Are patients’ judgments of health status really different from the general population? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:31.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Camerer CF. Prospect theory in the wild: evidence from the field. In: Kahneman D, Tversky A, editors. Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 288–300.

27.

Starmer C. Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. J Econ Lit. 2000;38:332–82.CrossRef

28.

Camerer CF. Individual decision making. In: Kagel JH, Roth AE, editors. Handbook of experimental economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1999. p. 587–703.

29.

Prelec D. The probability weighting function. Econometrica. 1998;66:497–528.CrossRef

30.

Shaw WD, Woodward RT. Why environmental and resource economists should care about non-expected utility models. Resour Energy Econ. 2008;30:66–89.CrossRef

31.

Gonzalez R, Wu G. On the form of the probability weighting function. Cogn Psychol. 1999;38:129–66.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Bleichrodt H, Pinto Prades JL. A parameter-free elicitation of the probability weighting function in medical decision analysis. Manag Sci. 2000;46:1485–96.CrossRef

33.

Abdellaoui M. Parameter-free elicitation of utility and probability weighting functions. Manag Sci. 2000;46:1497–512.CrossRef

34.

Bradford DF. Benefit–cost analysis and demand curves for public goods. Kyklos. 1972;23:775–91.CrossRef

35.

Smith RD. Sensitivity to scale in contingent valuation: the importance of the budget constraint. J Health Econ. 2005;24:519–29.

36.

Olsen JA, Donaldson C, Pereira J. The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: new evidence for health care. J Econ Psychol. 2004;25:445–60.CrossRef

37.

Ryan M. A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. Health Econ. 2004;13:291–6.PubMedCrossRef

38.

Fisher AC. The conceptual underpinnings of the contingent valuation method. In: Bjornstad DJ, Kahn JR, editors. The contingent valuation of environmental resources: methodological issues and research needs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 1996. p. 19–37.

39.

Bateman IJ, Brouwer R. Consistency and construction in stated WTP for health risk reductions. A novel scope sensitivity test. Resour Energy Econ. 2006;28:199–214.CrossRef

40.

Hammitt JK, Graham JD. Willingness to pay for health protection: inadequate sensitivity to probability? J Risk Uncertain. 1999;18:32–62.CrossRef

41.

CBS. http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/cijfers/kerncijfers/default.htm. Accessed 21 March 2012.

42.

Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Yokoyama KK, Freeman PR. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay in the health care sector: results from a field experiment. J Health Econ. 2001;20:441–57.PubMedCrossRef

43.

Flores N, Carson RT. The relationship between the income elasticities of demand and willingness to pay. J Environ Econ Manag. 1997;33:287–97.CrossRef

44.

RVZ-Council for Public Health and Health Care. Sensible and sustainable care. Zoetermeer Netherlands: Council for Public Health and Health Care; 2006 (in Dutch).

45.

Mason H, Jones-Lee M, Donaldson C. Modelling the monetary value of a QALY: a new approach based on UK data. Health Econ. 2009;18:933–50.PubMedCrossRef

46.

Harless DW, Camerer CF. The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica. 1994;62:1251–89.CrossRef

47.

Van Houtven G, Powers J, Jessup A, Yang J. Valuing avoided morbidity using meta-regression analysis: what can health status measures and QALYs tell us about WTP? Health Econ. 2006;15:775–95.PubMedCrossRef

48.

Jones-Lee MW, Loomes G, Philips P. Valuing the prevention of non-fatal road injuries: contingent valuation versus standard gamble. Oxf Econ Pap. 1995;47:676–95.

49.

Brouwer WBF, Culyer AJ, Van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH. Welfarism vs. extra-welfarism. J Health Econ. 2008;27:325–38.PubMedCrossRef

50.

Johannesson M, Blomquist GC, Blumenschein K, Johansson P, Liljas B, O’Conor RM. Calibrating hypothetical willingness to pay responses. J Risk Uncertain. 1999;18:21–32.CrossRef

51.

Bateman IJ, Brouwer R, Georgiou S, Hanley N, Machado F, Mourato S, Saunders C. A “natural experiment” approach to contingent valuation of private and public UV health risk reduction strategies in low and high risk countries. Environ Resour Econ. 2005;31:47–72.CrossRef

52.

Shogren JF, Crocker TD. Risk, self-protection, and ex ante economic value. J Environ Econ Manag. 1991;20:1–15.CrossRef

53.

Konishi Y, Kenji A. A framework for estimating willingness-to-pay to avoid endogenous environmental risks. Resour Energy Econ. 2011;33:130–54.CrossRef

54.

Viscusi WK, Evans WN. Estimation of revealed probabilities and utility functions for product safety decisions. Rev Econ Stat. 1998;80:28–33.CrossRef

55.

Riddel M, Shaw WD. A theoretically consistent empirical model of non-expected utility: an application to nuclear waste transportation. J Risk Uncertain. 2006;32:131–50.CrossRef

56.

OECD statistics. http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/index.aspx.

57.

Holland J, van Exel NJA, Schut FT, Brouwer WBF. Some pain, no gain. Experiences with the no-claim rebate in the Dutch health care system. Health Econ Policy Law. 2009;4:405–24.PubMedCrossRef

58.

Bobinac A, van Exel NJA, Rutten FFH, Brouwer WBF. Inquiry into the relationship between the equity weights and the value of a QALY. Value Health. 2012;15(8):1119–26.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The Value of a QALY: Individual Willingness to Pay for Health Gains Under Risk
verfasst von: Ana Bobinac
Job van Exel
Frans F. H. Rutten
Werner B. F. Brouwer
Publikationsdatum: 01.01.2014
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: PharmacoEconomics / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-013-0110-1

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Objective

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Review of Models Used in Economic Analyses of New Oral Treatments for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

The Impact of Structural Uncertainty on Cost-Effectiveness Models for Adjuvant Endocrine Breast Cancer Treatments: the Need for Disease-Specific Model Standardization and Improved Guidance

Cost Effectiveness of the New Pneumococcal Vaccines: A Systematic Review of European Studies

Why Should Regulators Consider Using Patient Preferences in Benefit-risk Assessment?

Comparative and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment Modalities for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in SEER-Medicare

Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors for the Provision of Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis: Clinical and Economic Consequences